Page 13 of 46 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 459

Thread: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Yes. Did you? It seems pretty plain. Why do you say it doesn't say what it seems to say?
    I read it many times. I posted it many times.

    It clearly says that our current status of NOT arresting/detaining legal residents of the USA without charge or trial, has not changed.

    It clearly says that American citizens & legal residents of the USA shall not be held indefinitely without charge or trial.

    what more does one need? a Youtube video?

  2. #122
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    I'm saying that no such power exists, and even if it did..the second a legal resident of the USA is held without chage or trial, the govt. would face lawsuits up the wazoo and be forced to back down, as they did with Jose Padilla.
    Jose Padilla was the one publicized instance of abuse. He was not the one time an American was illegally detained with anti-terrorism measures. Here's a few I found pretty quickly.

    Pre 911 Warning Results In Arrest Under Patriot Act For Susan Lindauer - Mad Mad World
    Imprisoned by the Patriot Act -- In These Times
    GrepLaw | Photographer Arrested "Under Patriot Act"
    Using The Patriot Act To Target Patriots
    Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process :: WRAL.com

    Since the moment it was passed, the Patriot Act was used to arrest and imprison American citizens and legal aliens without due process or affording them their basic constitutional rights. Every subsequent measure has also been abused left and right. If you think this one is any different, then you are sadly mistaken.

    "The second a legal resident of the USA is held without charge of trial" was ten years ago (and that's just under the war on terror). And it hasn't showed any signs of slowing yet.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #123
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    I read it many times. I posted it many times.

    It clearly says that our current status of NOT arresting/detaining legal residents of the USA without charge or trial, has not changed.

    It clearly says that American citizens & legal residents of the USA shall not be held indefinitely without charge or trial.

    what more does one need? a Youtube video?
    No, but posting that language verbatim would help. Perhaps you're confused about what language applies to what section.

    EDIT: Never mind, I found the previous post on another thread that was posted for your benefit, which you simply claimed was wrong but didn't explain why you think it's wrong. It contained the language too - right in front of your face and pretty clear. Here it is again:

    “Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so. But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

    SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
    Last edited by misterman; 01-02-12 at 01:51 PM.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  4. #124
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,444

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    If this bill doesn't allow for that, then how come every single Congressman who has defended it, the President and all the President's men have utterly failed to explicitly state that it doesn't? Why does the bill itself not state that? Why do they keep using the round-about language I cited in the OP?
    The bill does state that. Thunder already posted that for us.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #125
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,960
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The bill does state that. Thunder already posted that for us.
    Thunder posted this:


    APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
    (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident
    ..
    e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.


    If one reads carefully it clearly states that "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

    This means that they are not obligated to detain you, however it does not mean that they don't have the option of detaining you.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  6. #126
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The bill does state that. Thunder already posted that for us.
    What Thunder posted is that the bill specifically exempts American citizens from mandatory military detention. The section he quoted doesn't forbid the government from holding citizens indefinitely.

    ETA: Er, yeah, what Mr. Invisible said.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  7. #127
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,366

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    But only if people care enough. if they don't, if they're really ready to trade freedom for security, then our whole experiment in liberty is over. Are you ready to count on the populace and its willingness to be vigilant and challenge authority when it becomes necessary?
    While I agree about trading liberty for security, this bill is not going to change anything. Obama signed it because it was the budget for the military, it expires in a year, and he KNOWS that he won't allow the use of the unconstutional power it gives him. The real question is about the Congress that wrote and passed it. Who's idea was it anyway? And who decided to tack it on the the defense budget? I'm oretty sure it was the GOP and the question is why?

  8. #128
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,960
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    While I agree about trading liberty for security, this bill is not going to change anything. Obama signed it because it was the budget for the military, it expires in a year, and he KNOWS that he won't allow the use of the unconstutional power it gives him. The real question is about the Congress that wrote and passed it. Who's idea was it anyway? And who decided to tack it on the the defense budget? I'm oretty sure it was the GOP and the question is why?
    Yes, Obama has stated that he will not use it but what stops a future president from using that power?
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  9. #129
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,366

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    Yes, Obama has stated that he will not use it but what stops a future president from using that power?

    It expires at the end of his 1st term, I think that covers it.

  10. #130
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,540

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    Yes, Obama has stated that he will not use it but what stops a future president from using that power?
    and a president, being a politician and all, would never, but never ever go back on his word, right? Moreover, his promise extends to whoever takes his place, right? We have nothing to worry about, nothing at all. Let's give the whitehouse the power to detain without trial. Hell, let's give them any power that they want, just so long as the current POTUS promises not to use it. How about a suspension of the press? That's a great idea, too, don't you think?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

Page 13 of 46 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •